A cause breakdown isn’t shown here: 97% of NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION’s grantee dollars fall outside its nine largest cause areas, whether because the recipient carries no IRS cause code or because its cause sits in the long tail. A chart would be mostly one residual band and misrepresent the portfolio.

02FY2025 · 43 grants

Where the money goes

Your grants by size, and where they go.

By grant size · FY2025

Under $10k3 grants · $20k
$10k–50k37 grants · $812k
$50k–250k3 grants · $290k

$22,250

Median grant

States reached

$38.3B

Total assets

Largest grants
Recipient	Amount
NRECA	$154,659
MI020 ALGER-DELTA CO-OPERATIVE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION	$71,372
TEXAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES INC	$63,500
MISSOURI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES	$37,750
INDIANA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES	$35,750
GEORGIA ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION	$33,250
IOWA ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES	$32,250
MINNESOTA RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION	$32,000
ASSOCIATION OF ILLINOIS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES	$30,000
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION	$26,750
OHIO'S ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES	$26,750
PENNSYLVANIA RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION	$26,250
NORTHEAST ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES INC	$25,500
KANSAS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES INC	$25,250
VA MD & DE ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES	$25,250

02The need

Do your dollars go where the need is?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, your grants (FY17–25) land where the poverty rate runs at 12%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 68% of your dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount

Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.

Which US states your grants reach

US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.

Where the work is directed

The same grants, placed two ways — where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose earmarks the money.

About 9% of National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation’s grant dollars are earmarked, by their stated purpose, for a different county than the recipient’s own address — money that lands at a nonprofit in one place but is meant to do its work in another.

National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporationlessmore of its giving

Placed by recipient address

Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the foundation’s own 990 grant descriptions.

03Your edge

repeat funding

Who you back again

Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.

86%of every dollar goes to organizations you’ve funded before.

$10M · 58 repeat orgs$1.7M to everyone else

And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +32% since the first grant, against +12% for the ones you funded once.

58 repeat relationships — 42 still active in FY2025, 16 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

Total granted

$10M

$1.6M

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+32%

+12%

Still filing today

91%

92%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 94% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $71k went to new ones.

RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

Community ImprovementMembership BenefitHealthEmploymentOther

First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

NR
NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION
9× · 2017–2025 · $1.8M · revenue +17%
ME
MISSOURI ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES ASSOCIATION OF MO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVES
9× · 2017–2025 · $433k · revenue +23%
TE
TENNESSEE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOC
9× · 2017–2025 · $294k · revenue +67%

Funded once

RG
RIO GRANDE ELECTRIC COOP INCgraduated
one grant, 2020 · $229k · revenue +43%
CV
CONCHO VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC
one grant, 2023 · $150k · revenue +1%
SE
SAWNEE ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION
one grant, 2023 · $150k · revenue +10%

Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Your field

The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

Central Electric Cooperative

Make electric energy available to our members at the lowest cost consistent with sound economy and good management.

—

Umatilla Electric Cooperative

Umatilla electric cooperative is a member-owned electric utility that sells energy and other services to improve the quality of life in its service communities.

—

South Central Power Company

South central power company exists to add value to the lives of our members by delivering safe and dependable service.

—

Southwest Mississippi Electric Power Association

Member owned electric cooperative.

—

Missoula Electric Cooperative Inc

Missoula Electric Cooperative, Inc. strives to uphold a commitment to service excellence, while delivering safe, affordable and reliable electricty to its members.

—

Ravalli County Electric Cooperative Inc

To provide electrical power and services to its members located in its service area

—

United Electric Cooperative Inc

Providing affordable electricity to members

Public Benefit

Kootenai Electric Cooperative Inc

Provide our member-owners dependable electric power and exceptional service at competitive rates.

—

Henry County Rural Electric Membership Corporation

Provide reliable, safe and cost-competitive electric service to enhance the lives of our members and the communities we serve.

—

San Luis Valley Rural Electric Cooperative Inc

Sales of Electric power to Members. We had 13,355 meters in place at the end of 2024.

—

Core Electric Cooperative

The following mission statement guides the cooperative in fulfilling its tax exempt purpose of providing quality and reliable electric service to our member-consumers: improving lives and communities through choice and innovation.

—

Vermont Electric Cooperative Inc

Vermont electric cooperative is a member owned not-for-profit whose mission is to provide safe, affordable, and reliable energy services to its members.

—

For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Northwestern Electric Cooperative Inc and the most unlike its peers is Blood Cancer United Inc. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.

Your grantees are a median of 72 years old; the field is 16. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.

The field is 22% startups (under 5 years old) — 0% of your grantees by number, and just 0% of your money.

Closures · last 5 years

The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.0% lost their exemption, against 13% of the field you don’t fund.

orgs you fund

0.0%0/84

the rest of the field

13%

240,396/1,819,481

Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.

05the grantee network

77 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 77 of the 84 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.

Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)

Early backer (in before they grew)

77/77

Grantees still filing

72/77

Grew since you first funded

Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee

Other$11,852,152Community Improvement$151,900Membership Benefit$141,954Health$15,000Employment$7,100Philanthropy$5,000

Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing

Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them

A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a set of overlaps that mostly run through you, not between each other.

Cooperative Development FoundationDC13.5× affinity4 shared granteesties to 0 of 0Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Cooperative Development Foundation

Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

Government reliance of your grantees

Every dot is one organization National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.

2024

’20’21’22’23’24’25

no gov moneyreceives it· size = income

3get no government money at all

5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)

0rely on government for over half their income

typical government reliance, FY20–25

Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions

grants reported with no recipient in the public record

The regranting layer

51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer

The DAF merry-go-round

$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds

The camps

funders cluster by geography, not ideology

By state

where grant money is based, and what stays home

State money flows

the interactive map of money crossing state lines